Who is ever going to click on a tab labeled "Talk?" It might as well be called "Idle Chatter." Some of the most valuable tools for maintaining the accuracy of the data are the Life Sketch and the Notes. Now they are buried so deep in the UI as to guarantee no one will ever look at them!

Several of us do not like the person section that's on the beta site. The format hides discussions; notes, etc under "Talk." The "life sketch" is also hidden. These items keep going deeper in Family Tree. It would be nice to keep the life sketch on the person section, and put the notes/discussions in a visable place.

The beta version now has documents that say "review and attach." It's almost like a given guarantee that these documents are correct. There are enough people now that do not read each document prior to attaching to see if it actually is a match. There are many times when these documents are not for the person intended. I believe Family Search is opening a door for many erroneous attachements; merges, etc.

I realize this version is beta and will undergo many changes. Please give heed to the patrons to use FamilySearch.

I must admit I had not been into the "Beta" Environment ( ie. "Test" ) for a Couple of Weeks; but, as far as I can see / tell there is no significant change; and, especially not to "Notes" or "Discussions".

I know that in the "Default" view, the "LABELS" ( Attachment 'Tool' ) Section on the individual / person 'Person' / 'Details' page / screen was "Moved" ( ie. "Relocated" ) to the "Bottom" of page / screen, in the "Beta" ( ie. "Test" ) Environment; but, that was some time ago.

[ ps: I would actually love that in the "Default" view that the "LABELS" ( Attachment 'Tool' ) Section on the individual / person 'Person' / 'Details' page / screen was "Moved" ( ie. "Relocated" ) to the "Bottom" of page / screen, in the "Production" ( ie. "Live" ) Environment. 'Yes', I know I can move it; but, I would prefer that it was at the Bottom as a "Default"; because, being at the Top ( especially above the "Life Sketch" ) it spoils the importance of the "Life Sketch". Not every individual / person needs a "Label". Especially when there IS a "Life Sketch". ]

I went in this time using "Microsoft" 'Edge' ( rather than "Chrome" that I normally use ).

The note & discussion sections do not show on the person/detail page. It is hard enough to get patrons to read those sections that often contain valuable Heads-up type Alerts. The beta shows that these two important sections are buried under Talk.

There must absolutely be some way to have a Life Sketch or something similar on the main Detail page. This is essential to maintaining the integrity of the tree. If the programmers will actually will look at how the Life Sketch is currently being used, they will see that in many cases it's used for essential information that people need to know, such as don't add these certain parents to this person for the following reason, be aware that this person is commonly confused for another person, etc.
The reality is that people don't read. There must be a way to have the Life Sketch still in a prominent position or have some way to have a summary or particular note right on the main detail page.

If you read some of the "Replies" and "Comments" throughout this post there is the suggestion to "Hide" the "Life Sketch" ( many do not like that terminology / wording ) within the new design / format.

What will take some work is to figure out what has been relocated to where.

There are five tabs below the very shallow Header with the person's name, birth and death dates, and PID. View Tree, View My relationship, and Watch are all over on the right side of the shallow header. Those tabs are Details, Map, Talk, Ordinances (LDS only), and Memories.

The Details provides provides four sections: Timeline (for events), Facts (for non-timeline information, Family (similar to before), and Sources (also similar to before.

The Timeline is where you record all events, both Vital and Other. Custom events are still allowed. At the present time, the timeline seems to cover only vital information events and not all are active.

The Facts is where you record all facts, Custom facts are still allowed.

Family is essentially unchanged from production, including the flyout and actions. Still the same four options and nothing else.

Sources is essentially unchanged from production.

Map provides the timeline with sibling, spouse, and parent events, along with a map where the events take place. The timeline is very complete but the system lacks the ability to add events.

Talk is where you find the discussion and notes from the production environment.

For LDS, Ordinances opens up the ordinance page (unchanged from production).

Memories opens up the memories (for the person), which is also unchanged from production.

To say the least, this is still very much in development. But I will say that loading speed has been vastly improved. Missing is the Life Sketch.

There is also no change to the GEDCOM upload system.

But the first look is encouraging, but having so much on separate tabs does not work well if I want to see everything at once without having to click on tabs to change what I am looking at.

So far, even as far along as this is not, I cannot say I like the new way of presenting the information. I have to give it a thumbs down, simply because of the extra work to see everything involved with a person's record.

I just had a quick "Play" with the new design / format of the "Person / Details" page / screen in the "Beta" Environment ( ie. "Test" ).

Sorry, but ...

Again, FAIL.

(1) In the "Timeline Events" Section:

(a) Having to select the "Drop Down" ( ie.'v' ) to view / see the "Name" and "Sex" is utterly useless ( sorry, to be blunt; but, stupid ).

(b) Having a "Hint" sitting, even if only pending, in the body of the "Timeline" - just WRONG.

(c) Even worse, "Research Help" indicates "There are no pending hints" - WRONG, there is a "Hint" pending; and, to make matters worse that "Hint" is already sitting, even if only pending, in the body of the "Timeline".

(d) And, that "Filter" to "Select what you would like to appears on the timeline"; beggars disbelief, the current "Default" appears to be only x3 out of x7 Events; and, x1 out of x4 Relationships!? And, currently you cannot seem to save your preference.

(e) Users / Patrons should NOT be able to "Hide" ANY of the Events / Relationships - they must be ALL Mandatory. Otherwise, there will be even MORE errors by Users / Patrons - they have to be able see / view ALL Events / Relationships, to make sound decisions.

(f) And, "Facts" NO GOOD - far too narrow and limited. I see "Alternate Names" appears there - 'yuck'.

(2) "Right-Hand-Side" of the page / screen:

I prefer the "Sections" appearing within their own separate borders ( as is the case currently in the "Production" ( "Live" ) Environment.

Again, sorry, to be blunt; but, Fail, Fail, Fail.

Nice try though.

I hope there are a number of new possible "Design" / "Format" options that we ( ie. the Users / Patrons ) can "Voice" our opinions on ( and, "Vote" ); before, forcing such a "Radical" Change in "Design" / "Format".

Two major problems for me. Ordinances is showing for me when I'm not LDS, and it leads to a page with virtually nothing on it. Get rid of that for non-LDS. Memories also needs work as it is inconsistent with the rest of the design. It goes to a separate page rather than looking like a tab of one of the five major areas.

Also as people say the life sketch needs to be put into the interface somewhere.

Also what is a "fact" and what is an "event"? Title of nobility would be a fact to me, not an event for example. It's the granting of the title that's the event. However facts cannot have dates associated with them.

I agree about the drop-down for editing sex and name. It's an unnecessary extra click when quite a lot of this interface change appears to be designed to reduce the number of clicks required to do things. I'm also inclined to agree about it being exceedingly unwise to include record hints in the timeline. Convenient for someone like me, but I am not at the ability level of the vast majority of the users of this system are. The likely outcome of putting record hints into the timeline by default is users being even more likely to attach them without checking properly what is going on.

Personally speaking I think it will reduce the number of clicks that I undertake to generally interact with the system. That is because the number of clicks to edit events has been cut in half by getting rid of the silly necessity for two clicks to edit timeline events. One possibility to further reduce the number of clicks is to add and edit link to each source citation as well. Again there should be no need to click on a source citation to get all of the options up. Another thing that should be done is getting rid of the summary which pops up whenever a profile name link is clicked on. When a link of that type is opened I know precisely who I am clicking on and I want to get to the profile. I don't want to have to click to open the summary and then click to go to the full profile.

As for seeing everything at once, I'm inclined to disagree. At some point having so much on screen means the UI is too cluttered and things get lost. Ordinances are irrelevant for non-LDS and it really does make sense to have them in a separate place. The map tab also feels correct as it is fundamentally different way of displaying the information on the system. That leaves talk and memories. I think that talk is an appropriate place for the life sketch to end up. I also see no reason that memories cannot end up there too. That would cut down the UI from five tabs to four, reducing the number of clicks and would separate the different aspects of the profile more consistently and logically.

As you have indicated, definitely not good that you as a Non-Member Account holder ( User / Patron ) can EVEN see the "Ordinance" ( for want of a better term ) 'Tab,' let alone accessing that 'Tab', despite the fact that it leads to nothing!

That is not good, even in the "Beta" ( "Test" ) Environment!

As a member having a quick look, not something that I would notice or even looked at.

The only thing that I suggest that differs from your comments is the location of the "Life Sketch", for me, I think that the "Life Sketch" should be in a stand-alone section above the "Timeline Events" section - in a prominent position - not hidden away.

This post was certainly a catalyst for viewing a / the proposed new design / format of the "Person / Details" page / screen; and, was also certainly the starting point for input from us Users / Patrons - just what this forum is all about.

==========

Chas

Great post.

Good pick-up.

==========

As always, just my opinion.

Brett

ps: I see that after / since my previous "Reply", in this post, that the "Hint" that appeared in the "Timeline Event"; but, not in the "Research Help", now also appears in the "Research Help" - maybe just a "Refresh" glitch - I hope so.

Remember this is very early in the development of the reworked person page.

I am sure that as development progresses, we will see improvements. I am also sure that there are elements that are still being worked on, including, but not limited to "seeing" the "ordinances" tab by non-LDS.

I also suspect that a lot of this is being developed "on the fly" without a good pre-planned layout that the development team has approved. Some of the features certain appear to be that way.

At least we are getting a look at the way things will work in the future in a "sandbox" (beta) environment.

As time progresses, we should continue to comment on what we see and like and what we don't.

For me, I like the timeline (once it is complete) and the map.

The ordinances page is just a tab leading to old code, which is why David can see the tab, but when the page opens, he sees nothing.

A fact is differentiated from an event by the ability to attach a date and place to it. I'm not sure there is any real value to that, aside from the list having been initially developed from the +Add list in Other information and what appears in Vital Information. It should be interesting to see if Christening can be interchanged with Baptism in Vital Information, or if that functionality is moved to "Other Information".

My main complaint - that various tabs have to be selected to see everything pertaining to a person (other than those associate with LDS beliefs) have to be used to see all the information.

In my opinion, Details, Map, Memories, and (for LDS) Ordinances are all that are needed. I'm not sure that Details should contain a timeline, but if it does, then it needs to be the same timeline that is displayed under the Map tab.

They haven't removed the distinction between "vital" information and others. The vital information entries still don't have a description field like they should. Tagging of events with source citations is also still as limited as it ever was.

Notes on New Details Page
Time Line:
• Interesting toy. NOT a fan!!! Should NOT replace current “Details” page. The births, marriages and deaths of children or others will make this area MUCH to cluttered. If you insist on keeping this it should be added to the options line, ie. “Details Time Line Map Memories (10) Ordinances”
• Record hints/Source attachment: Sources for children, births, Marriages and Deaths – No way to ignore these hints; if these sources are attached at all they should be attached to the parent/child relationship pages.
• Couple Relationship Page:
• Marriage sources NOT attached.
• No change in the list of Marriage Events ie.
1. Marriage License/Banns etc. - NOT included in the list of Marriage Events.
2. No option for “Not Married”.
Map:
Nice Toy! When the map comes up it should be focused on the area of the world were selected individual resided, Not the United States. Focus should remain on the area’s cited in the individual record as you scroll in for details.
Talk:
Should be retitled to “Notes/Discussions” or perhaps separated, ie. “Notes (15)” “Discussions (5)” and included on the “options line” ie. “Details / Notes (10)-Discussions (5) / Time Line / Map / Memories (10) / Ordinances”
The fact that clicking on this area brings the notes and Discussions up is an improvement over the current system of just knowing how many are there but having to scroll to the bottom of the “details” page to find them.
Labels:
Not eliminated. But, at least, relegated to a less significate location.
Life Sketch:
This very valuable area seems to have been eliminated. Why???
Conclusion:
Long, sought after changes and modifications desired by the serous user community have not been addressed. Gross waste of Tithing Funds

"A fact is differentiated from an event by the ability to attach a date and place to it" - or perhaps, making it possibly clearer, the inability to attach... Or maybe it's not clearer...

What concerns me is that having two sections - for events and facts separately - now forces people to think about the difference between the two. Is this really a good idea? Especially when FamilySearch is using different definitions from, err, FamilySearch when they produced GEDCOM.

Originally the distinction was between Events and Attributes. (And at least one bit of software, Family Historian, uses the term "Fact" as an overall term to mean an Event or an Attribute.)

The distinction between Events and Attributes was always a bit flakey - GEDCOM 5.5 classed Occupation, for instance, as an Attribute. In Family Historian, say, the distinction is that Attributes usually have mandatory "values". Another distinction that gets quoted is that Events usually take place on a single day, while Attributes describe something that is true for some time.

The best definition I have seen is that Attributes describe a status quo, while Events are what change a status quo.

All of which is not easy. Which is why I have concerns about opening up the distinction now. Having said that, the no-date-no-place definition of a "Fact" might actually be easier to understand than previous attempts to define "Attribute", so I reserve the right to eventually agree with the idea! But 2 points occur to me:

1. The scope for confusion between Fact here v. Attribute elsewhere.

2. Two at least of the Facts (Alternate Name and Physical Description) arguably should have dates. Clearly Physical Descriptions should be dated. Alternate Names can possibly be dated. (On the last item - I remember we took ages to persuade the GEDCOMX designers that Names should be dateable - they eventually agreed. Has that agreement been lost or forgotten?)

"The best definition I have seen is that Attributes describe a status quo, while Events are what change a status quo."

That is a good way to present the difference.

Religion is a good example. A person, such as myself, may have been born into one particular religion and lived it all his youth. Later, as an adult, he converted to another religion.

The final religious affiliation is an Attribute. The conversion is an event. The previous religious affiliation is an attribute that is bounded by dates (infant baptism to conversion).

Occupation is another situation. A person may start life as a farmer and then gain a degree in some other field, such as biology, and become a researcher. The Attribute - Farmer - changes upon entering upon a higher education to Student with an event, which then changes to researcher upon gaining employment as a biologist in the field of research.

I have several such shifts (not in those fields) over the course of my working career.

Item 2 on the list: "Two at least of the Facts (Alternate Name and Physical Description) arguably should have dates. Clearly Physical Descriptions should be dated. Alternate Names can possibly be dated." is interesting. Physical condition can change as the result of an accident, weight gain, operation and subsequent weight loss, but it also can be dated, such as the description on a draft notice or military enlistment (or, for that matter, incarceration.

Alternate names can have several dates for the same name. For instance, I have many cases, where the name switched back and forth in subsequent census enumerations. I don't mean spelling, but the order of the given names. Harry James Smith can be recorded as Harry, Jimmy, Harry James, James H., of James Harry, depending upon the documentation. I've seen these variations spread across multiple sources, including but not limited to birth certificates, census records, religious records, marriage records, military records, and death records. In the United States, Social Security records name changes over time, especially as the person becomes married and/or divorced (primarily applies to women). Likewise, official court action can result in name changes.

So, sometimes no dates (same name all their life), sometimes one date (official court action), sometimes multiple dates - birth and death with a different name on the marriage record.

It all becomes very strange and even with the new design, there may be fields that are left blank. (Attribute dates, for instance). Events would have dates. Some attributes can be events, so having two separate sections is counter productive in the lives of some people.

Hopefully someone who is responsible for the design is reading these posts.

"Physical condition ... also can [possibly] be dated, such as the description on a draft notice or military enlistment"
Exactly the instance I was thinking of - in fact most reasonably detailed descriptions that I've seen come off dated documents. Not all, of course: "My granddad was tall and thin, with a Scottish accent..." is an undatable reminiscence.

"Some attributes can be events"
The pedant in me rebels against that - however, different people may indeed come to different conclusions about whether something is an event or an attribute (a status quo). For instance, is the First World War a 4 year status quo (an attribute) stating that the world is currently at war? Or an event taking 4y?

So it's a bit tricky - some of the proposed "facts" / attributes are permanent, so can easily be separated out. Others are trickier.

Regardless of other uses there is one alternative name that not only could be dated but should be dated: married name. The change of name only takes place at the marriage which is on a defined date and persists until death or divorce or until the person decides to revert to a maiden name. That again takes place on a defined date, although sourcing a person's decision to revert to a maiden name could be more tricky.

Several of us do not like the person section that's on the beta site. The format hides discussions; notes, etc under "Talk." The "life sketch" is also hidden. These items keep going deeper in Family Tree. It would be nice to keep the life sketch on the person section, and put the notes/discussions in a visable place.

The beta version now has documents that say "review and attach." It's almost like a given guarantee that these documents are correct. There are enough people now that do not read each document prior to attaching to see if it actually is a match. There are many times when these documents are not for the person intended. I believe Family Search is opening a door for many erroneous attachements; merges, etc.

I realize this version is beta and will undergo many changes. Please give heed to the patrons to use FamilySearch.

But, FYI, the wording of "Review and Attach", on the 'Button', for attaching "Sources", is already now in the "Production" ( "Live" ) Environment.

I totally understand what you are implying; and, initially, when I first saw it in the "Production" ( "Live" ) Environment, I felt the same way.

I know it is a bit "wordy"; but, it would be better if the wording of the 'Button' was something like ... "Review; and, Attach, if appropriate" ... or ... "Review; and, Attach, if it is the same Person" ... or ... the like.

I would need to log back into the beta site to check, but right now, if one clicks on Show Details, you get two options for hints -- review and attach and right below that, "Not a Match."

These options need to continue to be available, otherwise, Denise is right on when she says, There are enough people now that do not read each document prior to attaching to see if it actually is a match. There are many times when these documents are not for the person intended. I believe Family Search is opening a door for many erroneous attachments; merges, etc.

This goes to a need for a banner to be displayed in the source linker that says something to the effect, "Make sure the source you are attaching is actually about the person(s) to whom you are attaching the source" or something to that effect.

I LOVE IT! Great improvement. The timeline has always been what I've been putting the sources in to better understand the person's history. Placing the hints on the timeline is ingenious! Adding FACTS is also a really big improvement because a lot of my patrons didn't even know what "OTHER" meant. I love the new Marriage, Death, and Burial symbols - super idea.

Record Hints do not belong on the Timeline. Putting them there leaves the false impression that they have somehow been verified and the user simply needs to "click the button." Many of the Record Hints are spurious. It needs to be made clear that Record Hints are just that -- they are "Hints." The user has the responsibility to carefully review them and determine if they are valid.

You can turn the Record Hints OFF with the FILTER if you really feel they don't add to the person's timeline but I LOVE THEM where they are! They give you a picture of the history of that person so I personally would leave them checked in the FILTER box.

Ted has a point, but so do you, Howard. I also like that they appear in the timeline, but would prefer two buttons -- "Not a Match" and "Review and Attach." That way, we can see where they would fall and most people would not, with both buttons, automatically think that the place has been preapproved (somehow).

An alternative would be buttons labeled "Not a Match" and "Review" which would open the source linker. What the new UI for the source linker could be very important in this regard.

Some bugs for engineers to work on:
1. Adding to the timeline fails to save the edits.
2. Sex is missing some of the time - It's there and then it goes away.
3. Adding Facts also fails to stick. After saving, it shows and then disappears.
4. I would like the Name and Sex not to be ever hidden because it is vital for users to be able to edit it and when not showing all the time - confusing to the end user.

I do love the edit link is now right next to the vital information and showing the number of sources tagged to that event.

Who is ever going to click on a tab labeled "Talk?" It might as well be called "Idle Chatter." Some of the most valuable tools for maintaining the accuracy of the data are the Life Sketch and the Notes. Now they are buried so deep in the UI as to guarantee no one will ever look at them!

I do think that the LIFE SKETCH should be under the DETAILS tab rather than TALK so it shows all the time. If I had my "druthers" I would have these 5 items under DETAILS:
1. Life Sketch
2. Timeline Events
3. Facts
4. Family
5. Sources
You are on the right track! Keep up the good work!

Actually I rather prefer that Life Sketch, Notes and Discussions are separate. They are current, free form, opinion based - anything could go in there, whereas the Details tab is supposed to be for sourced data, not interpreted opinion. Information, not interpretation.

Admitted "Talk" is a bit of a lame name. And I'd still like to see a clear distinction in the UI between what are Notes and what Discussions.

I think Adrian is correct. In my mind, the Life Sketch should actually be recorded in a memory feature called Stories. We have been told that Stories will be expanded to include more than just one photograph. Life Sketch, as a proper and true sketch of a person's life (a mini-biography), is not being used in that manner now. I have yet to see any mini-biographical entry in Life Sketch for any of my relatives.

Notes should be folded into wherever the note applies. Far too many of them are not research oriented, but conclusions based upon research that has been performed. If they cannot be folded into an event or fact, then they should be made into a discussion.

Discussions are an important collaborative tool. I would recommend changing "Talk" to "Discussions" with a number that reflects the number of separate discussions in the record.

Record Hints mixed in with Timeline Events
I applaud this. We keep going on that some of the hints are stupid because they are way before birth or after death - surely this arrangement will highlight such obvious idiocies?

"Many of the Record Hints are spurious. It needs to be made clear that Record Hints are just that -- they are "Hints.""
Well, yes. I understand that many of the Record Hints are spurious - see my previous point. I'm not quite sure how we make it any clearer in the heading. Saying that Record Hints are Hints doesn't actually take the explanation much further forward. It's a statement of the obvious to me.

More seriously, right now the "Review and Attach" button on a Timeline Hint doesn't actually do what it says. It goes straight into the Attach process, without even seeing the data contents of the record. That is utterly wrong. Whereas the Hints list in the "Research Help" section does show the data content (as per production). Hopefully this is just an intermittent stage in the coding.

In terms of the imperative given to the user, a running concern has always been that "Review and Attach" is taken as an instruction to do both those things. "Computer says Attach ... Must Attach..." That being so, why not simply revise the button to say just "Review"? Then the review window could say something like "Does the FRED BLOGGS in this record match the person in your tree?" Oh, of course, it wouldn't say "in your tree" because I'm quoting the equivalent instruction in Ancestry - at least they actually mention the crux of the matter - "Is it the same person?"

Agreed on the Review and Attach function. If the two buttons were "Not a Match" and "Review" then I modify my recommendation to have the "Review" button pop open a window with the details of the hint (such as what happens on the search results of historical records when I click on a name). From there, I can press the "Review and Attach" button and go to the source linker.

Something that might be considered; with the Life Sketch, notes, discussions being moved to "Talk" space. We work with the youth, and when they see the word "Talk" they're thinking social media...chat time. The youth may think this is a place to chat with relatives, friends, etc about family history.

Also in regards to the youth (or anyone else), on the timeline when a record hint is available it links directly to Source Linker. People will not think this is a hint. They will immediately attach, irregardless if the record is incorrect. This is going to create a real mess.

There needs to be some kind of an Alert/Heads-up section right at the top on the person detail page where important notices/information is easily seen without hunting for it, whether that is Note or Discussion or Life Sketch or something else.

It bothers me that on the beta format there is not even a notice whatsoever that there is any information that needs to be conveyed. At least now on the FS page here is a number associated with the Notes and Discussions serving as a minimal notice that there is something written in those sections. Not really adequate but better than nothing.

Okay, this is a wind-up, eh? Albeit a very expensive one - and LDS members are happy with their money being spent on this?

To think I've been accepting the "limited resources" argument as a reason serious errors can't be corrected and now the developers seem to have been provided with mega-bucks to present us with something potentially far more damaging than the present system could ever produce.

All I can (sadly) hope is they will be given the necessary extra resources to sort out some of this mess before anything like the present Beta format goes live.

Please add your votes to Ted's and Denise's posts - delighted to see them under Promoted responses.

Please do not be hasty. What we are seeing on the beta site is an early look at a new User Interface. It is far from complete, but my initial thoughts are to give the development team time to finish the design, rather than jump to the conclusion that this is the way the future is going to be.

This is part of the ongoing site-wide rework that Ron Tanner has talked about.

My initial feeling is that yes, there is a lot of work yet to be done. I find that Howard Camp's screen shot and notes to be very productive in regard to helping analyze what is being developed.

The one thing that I noticed is that switching to another person is extremely fast, compared to the production site (well under a second). That is a major breakthrough for the site and will be widely welcomed by many people.

New features, such as a timeline, which had been requested a number of times is going to be welcomed and some have already said they like it.

For now, lets not jump to any conclusion that this new code is anywhere near ready for prime time. It isn't and I suspect that as the days go by, we will see some of the suggestions implemented, if they are not already part of the design.

I appreciate the comments good and bad about this new design. The best comments target specific about what doesn't work, not how the team is this or that.

When a feature is coded, it is coded to what the desired design specifies. That design is desired to be complete and workable enough to graduate to production (eventually). Major changes get put out in some form (user testing, beta...) before going to production to vet the design and deal with the bugs. Bugs are defects in implementation (this doesn't work). Bugs are easy to fix typically as are UI (color, font, text). But deficiencies in the core design of workflow (getting a job done), or loss of functionatliy can be way more involved.

THings will change but how big those changes are are up to user reaction. If everybody likes it, then it tends to graduate without much modification. The known bugs will get fixed.

Feel free to report the bugs and look stuff. Most of those are probably already logged. Likewise if something works better than before let the team know. But if you have major functional/workflow issues then be specific, avoid exaggeration, and get to the core of what is wrong. (BTW: I don't control the design or implementation of what gets done or doesn't.)

It would be useful if sometime soon, a label were to appear on the screen in the same manner that "Bifrost" appeared on the original Beta software. "Bifrost" still appears occasionally but I suspect only when we get dumped back into the original code-base. If the new code-base had its own distinctive label it might help us understand where we are, and where the software guys had got to.

I suggest this only because I assume that labelling will eventually have to take place to distinguish the eventual new-look production and the new-look Beta. Obviously less of an issue now... (Of course, geeks like me will spend ages trying to think of a suitable name to succeed Bifrost!)

OK, so perhaps dumb question, but HOW or WHERE are you folks all accessing this new version of things? I've tried beta.familysearch.org, and it looks identical to www.familysearch.org. What am I doing wrong?

Initially when I first saw this post of 'Chas', I was exactly the same as you.

To look as the "Beta" ( ie. "Test" ) Environment at the time, I was using latest "Microsoft" 'Edge' Browser with Windows 10, as I was working in the "Production" ( "Live ) Environment using the latest "Chrome" with Windows 10, as I normally do.

But, when 'Chas' then added the Screen Print of the new design / format, I was amazed; and, wondered as to why I was not seeing it.

So, to be certain, I CLEARED out my "Cache"; and, then, logged back in.

Only then did the new design / format materialise.

I have not tried looking at new design / formation of the "Beta" ( ie. "Test" ) Environment in "Chrome" yet.

With Windows 10, Google Chrome, and clearing browsing history the beta site comes up as identical to the production version. One annoyance when logging in to the beta site, I get the message "Are you new?" I've tried to find people using both find by name and find by ID and I get the production version.

Juli, any luck yet?
Using https://beta.familysearch.org/ Chrome Win7 I sign in then Family Tree Person Page and beta format appears. First time I tried. I think it’s time for a call to support after the 4 Jul holiday.

No luck. I've cleared everything except cookies. (I like websites to remember my settings, thankyouverymuch.)
I'm using Firefox on Windows 7.
Right now I'm taking my daughter to the 4th of July carnival, but later I'll see if Firefox will let me find and clear only specific cookies, to see if that helps.

When we visited the North American continent a little while back we got, Canada Day there; and, then 4th of July in USA - really great, something that we had never experienced before.

Now ...

This is weird.

I just tried to go BACK into "Beta" ( ie. "Test" ) Environment using "Microsoft" 'Edge' to access the new design / format, which was working the other day; and, now, no good, I just get the old style design / format!?

I gave it a rest last night / this morning ( 'wee small hours of the morning' ), did not clear any "Cookies".

But, later this morning, I CLEARED only the "Cookies" relating to the "Beta" website; and, 'lo and behold', there you have it, the new design / format of the "Person / Page" of the "Beta" ( ie. "Test" ) Environment finally appeared in "Chrome".

You are doing a great job and here are some more suggested additions to the new format:
1. Instead of "DETAILS", I would like to see something like the following on the single line where Details now is. These would be hyperlinks to the corresponding sections with the number of entries shown similar to our present production site. This would mean moving Life Sketch from "TALK" to above the Timeline Events:
1) Life Sketch (1)
2) Timeline Events(8)
3) Facts (3)
4) Family
5) Sources (12)
6) Map
7) Notes (4) and Discussions (2) [Instead of "Talk"]
OR: Notes & Discussions (6)
8) Ordinances [with the temple icon showing as now in production]
9) Memories (13)
2. Name & Sex Open all the time rather than a drop-down
3. Move the FILTER drop-down to the same line and directly behind the Timeline Events title (It is easily missed where it is now placed).
4. I've got Residence checked on my Filter options and I get the following under the Timeline: 2 Events with Data Problems V. When I click on the down V I see two Residences that can be Edited but I don't see what the problem is. When there is a problem with an entry on the timeline, are we going to get that Data Problem warning? And, if so, a better explanation is needed to be user-friendly. See below image.

Having the life sketch first by default would be extremely bad UI design. What should be first in a UI? Summary elements that give a quick overview of the situation and shortcuts to functionality should be first. Life sketch is neither a summary nor a shortcut. Like it or not for good, uncluttered UI design the life sketch should be buried a bit out of the way.

So what are such elements? Name and sex and the timeline. Links to the other tabs of the interface. That's why they are where they are in the new design.

Life sketch is a biography of the person concerned. That should be available when drilling down to get more information. Ditto notes and discussions and source citations. As for not reading life sketches before making changes: it's not automatically a bad thing. If there were obvious problems with an entry (lack of geographical skill among the contributors or temporal anomalies in the profile for example) I would have no hesitation in ignoring the life sketch before editing. I would have a look at things that matter like proper source citations but the life sketch is not applicable to that because it is (or should be) a synthesis in text form of information about the individual.

Many of us are now using the Life Sketch (because it is up front and at the top of the person's details page) to warn, ask, caution users into taking a long look at all the details that are currently provided for a person before making any changes to the person's information.

The request that it be up front is the result of that use.

The new design makes no provision for that kind of information to be posted once a person's details are relatively complete and accurate.

I agree that we are misusing the Life Sketch, but until FS provides some means to warn patrons about making changes (or even provides a means to "lock" the details of a person into place), we need some means by which changes are slowed down.

Well I know I moved Life Sketch right down the bottom of the screen to get it out of tbe way and stop it cluttering things up. In fact I keep it collapsed rather than expanded to further declutter things. I don't think I'm one of the people you're worried about however!

I'm another that you're wasting your time on if you put warnings and instructions into the Life Sketch. I've shunted the Life Sketch in production right down to the bottom - only Labels get any lower.... On the Beta site, it's actually faster for me to reach the Life Sketch - one click to get to the "Talk" tab(?) and often as not, no scrolling needed.

Rather than mis-use Life Sketch, maybe have a Warnings tab as well as the Talk tab? (nope, I don't like Talk as a name either). And have it go red if there are any warnings?

My main concern is about Notes, Discussions and Life Sketch being hidden in the strangely headed "Talk" (I thought the term "Recents" was bad enough!)

I frequently use Discussions & Notes to give reason statements to justify my inputs. It is bad enough now that other users ignore these remarks (their being way down the person page). This new format will not help in encouraging others to examine the facts thoroughly before making changes (merges, adding wrong parents/children, etc.).

I worry less about the "Review and attach" situation, as I assume this will be noted and sorted.

Perhaps I and others have slightly overreacted, so Joe Martel makes good points regarding comments and criticisms. However, I still think I'm not going to be happy with the new version (once it goes "live"), as I cannot see the basic design model being completely changed (which is what I would hope for).

Incidentally, the "Map" feature might prove to be a good idea. One benefit will be if a place is shown (on the map) far from the actual location where the event took place: this will probably mean the wrong standard has been used for the location inputted! I have already come across one example where there are "two Danbys" in Yorkshire and the map shows one event against the "wrong Danby" - probably something for me to put right - unless this is a programming fault.

There are some problems with the Map feature. Last night as I was playing with the new design, I realized that the feature works very well, as long as the places for each event are complete. In the example that I used (see my other discussion on the Name and Sex feature - to display or not to display or (preferably) to leave open), I discovered that I had to place other than the state for one of the kids. The map was great up the death of that child and then the map had this lonely "pin" out in the middle of the state.

While something like that is great, sometimes, we cannot obtain a more specific location. All indications are that the place was where the rest of the family lived, but I do not like to speculate, something that the Map feature will encourage when specific places cannot be found (the state is available on the census enumeration pages when the person is in the census).

I think there's a lot of potential for the map, especially if it can be coded up more effectively. My first impression is that it opens up showing the world and centred somewhere off the coast of California. It would be more useful to open up with the biggest possible magnification that still shows all the events, with the map centred to get that effect. (Nope, I have no idea how to do that!)

What would also help is if the hints could be made to (optionally?) appear on the map, with the pins for the hints in a different colour - if you get red pins for the actuals, and a whole series of (say) blue hint-pins visibly on the other side of the UK, this might encourage someone to realise that the distant hints just might be for a different person.

Right now I'm assuming (and hoping) that the map facility is in its infancy with more ideas to come.

OK.... This is less than funny. In Chrome, it opens up pretty much as I just requested - concentrating on the pins. In Firefox, it's centred on the west coast of CA. Given that you are utilising Google Maps, why are you submitting different parameters in the case of each browser, when the target Google sub-routine is surely the same? Why in this day and age do we seem to have browser specific coding? Because how many browsers are there? Lots... (Sorry but I'm having a distinct sense of humour and sense of tolerance failure on this...)

Centering on San Francisco is a bug I've experienced on the (not-ready-for-production) Places tool (https://www.familysearch.org/research...). I'll search for, say, "Hungary", and it'll show me the Golden Gate Bridge. The red pin-thingy is over on the other side of the globe, where it belongs, but that's not the part of the map that it zooms to.

Brett - no idea what I did except that, as I just wanted to cross check against Firefox, I pasted the Firefox URL for the person page in FSFT directly into the Chrome browser. In other words, I bypassed the entire menu hierarchy.

The production site behaves inconsistently in tiny details - specifically, if I just go to the very front page of FS, sometimes I get one splash screen photo, sometimes another. It could be that they are set to rotate, of course, but then I'd expect to see more variation than I do... To my inexpert eye, it seems like sometimes I end up on one server, and sometimes on another, and the splash screen photos aren't replicated across them all.

I wonder if a replication issue is inhibiting the appearance of the new design of the Beta site for you?

I just tried to go BACK into "Beta" ( ie. "Test" ) Environment using "Microsoft" 'Edge' to access the new design / format, which was working the other day; and, now, no good, I just get the old style design / format!?

I use Chrome on Win7 and have no problems logging in and seeing the new User Interface, but...

I did notice that sometimes, the old design shows up. It only happened to me once, but using the link provided there was no problem. It was when I entered (manually) the site beta.familysearch.org, that I got the old UI.

I know that my computer is set up (with CCleaner) to clear the browser history et al upon exit automatically. That may have something to do with it.

Anyway, I know that if I'm logged into the production site, that is when the old UI showed up. I had to exit the production site with the browser and then sign in to the beta site. Because it was on the same computer, that also meant that I needed to sign out of beta to sign back into production (even though the original sign-in was set for the two-week auto-reconnect).

I think there may be cookie interference between the two sites.

Right now, I am using a different computer for testing the beta site and that doesn't bother my main computer (a laptop) with respect to the production site.

But on that other computer, I had to sign in to the Get Satisfaction FamilySearch site and leave the Get Sat open, then sign in with another tab to the beta site. There is definitely interaction between the two sites -- at least, the sign in.

Like I said, I don't know if any of this will help. Good Luck with getting to the beta site.

I gave it a rest last night / this morning ( 'wee small hours of the morning' ), did not clear any "Cookies".

But, later this morning, I CLEARED only the "Cookies" relating to the "Beta" website; and, 'lo and behold', there you have it, the new design / format of the "Person / Page" of the "Beta" ( ie. "Test" ) Environment finally appeared in "Chrome".

I'm trying to remember to use Firefox for "production" and Chrome for Beta to stop the cookies falling over each other if I only use one browser. If I only use one browser I seem to be logging in all the time - presumably as the Beta logon cookie is replaced by the production logon cookie...

Continuing on the Map feature, I am illustrating below a problem that I can't see will be easily resolved. I thought that it was my input that was bringing up the wrong Danby (Danby by Middleham - just shown as Middleham on the map), but this location is being taken from the 1841 census source - see the timeline. I'm sure there are going to be a lot of these instances where the wrong place will be used in coding and produce incorrect detail on the map. Plotting Springfield on a map relating to the Simpsons comes to mind!

(Btw - the "correct" Danby is over to the east, partially hidden by a pin! The other highlighted places show John Briggs' christening, marriage, death locations, etc.)

Unless I am mistaken, the root cause is that you are using a different Standardised place-name for the 1841 census - so, it is (sorry!) your input that has created the issue. Whether or not it was at all obvious that you had ended up with different Standard place-names is another matter.

Initially, I thought that myself, Adrian, then realised there was no input from me over this event and that Danby by Middleham has been picked-up directly from the source. (Users do not standardise sources - only vitals inputs, etc.) The 1841 census source detail shows the Danby in question should be the one near Guisborough, but how is that supposed to be recognised by any code?

As a spin-off from Paul's comments above, I have just been just been reviewing the place-name handling in the Timeline Events and I consider it to be a gigantic step back.

1. The Timeline Events show the Standardised place-names, not the Display names. Thus, if I have inserted a street address at the start of the place name, it's not visible until I start to edit. That is absolutely the reverse of what it should be.

2. It should not be necessary to bring up the edit to show the 2 place-names - in the current system, the Display name is shown automatically and the Standard version appears when you hover over the Display. No need to edit - which is a hostage to fortune if you accidentally edit stuff.

3a). If I do bring up the edit to see the two names, the default is that I see the Display Name only - this is silly as it means that the two screens (this and where I've just come from) show different names (Display on this, Standard on previous).

3b). Secondly the screens still do their best to hide the Standardised name from the user - there is just a tick by the phrase "Standardised Place", instead of showing it clearly all the time.

3c) Thirdly I still have absolutely no idea how to enquire on that Standardised Place-name - I'm clicking all over the place - sometimes it comes up with 1 click, sometimes I seem to need to click 3/4 times before it condescends to listen. (I suspect it may only come up if I persuade the system that I have potentially edited the item - this is a nonsense as I am only seeking to enquire on it).

This has always been one of my bug-bears - for something as important as the Standardised place-name, it gets hidden away too much. I had hoped this would come out in the open - but no.

I had also discovered the same thing, but did not want to start another thread on that subject, like the thread I started on the Name and Sex display, until I saw if many people would contribute their thoughts. I'm still not certain that I want to start a separate discussion on entered and standardized places.

I agree the place, standardized place input needs a lot of work. Having the standardized place display and not the "full information" makes the full information almost useless. I understand the system will use the standardized location for searches and matches etc but using it in the timeline/vital events section does not allow someone for example to show a birth at home it is always going to display as the town, county etc, associated with the standardized location. I am much opposed to the present display.

Well this, to me, shows the problem with trying to pack too much into the Place field. I have advocated for quite a while that the Description field should be used for address information below the level of a town or village.

Ideally I would prefer a separate Place Details field like Rootsmagic has for things like that, but for the moment Description will have to do. That's why I believe it is crucial that the old "vital" events have a Description field added to them so that street address or church or cemetery or hospital et al, can be added to those events.

The display of standardised v entered place names on the beta system is not acceptable at the moment. The only place where the entered place name can be seen is when actually editing the entry. Also there appears to be a bug with the editing code in that when a change is made to the Description field the Save button does not light up, thus making it impossible to amend entries in that field.

I was curious to what the green circles represented. I clicked on them and noticed that it lists the # of persons watching an individual and # persons who contributed (which is a great idea). Might it be possible to list the contributors with an email link? This would be helpful especially if there have been errorneous changes/documentation or lack of documentation; inquiries as to what their sources were, etc. Or would this be a privacy issue?

Perhaps, the design / format could be ( that is, if it not already is ) that you could select, either, the (1) 'Person(s) Watching'; or, (2) the 'Past Contributors'; and, a "Pop-Up" with a "Table" displaying a list of the "Contact Names" of those Users / Patrons in each list; with, the ability to "Send" a Message through 'User Messaging' of "FamilySearch", something that already exists.

I guess we need some sort of overall sort order to be used when partial dates appear. For example, Burial should always be post death unless explicitly dated otherwise - which would be an error. I hope.

One of the things I reported in another thread is that currently in production. FamilySearch's source linker is incorrectly adding the year of the burial, when the Find a Grave record does not contain that information. It is entirely possible that this is being added by Find a Grave for FamilySearch, but it should be ignored, not included with the record.

Therefore, the idea of an "order" to events is crucial in the new code. Christenings and Baptisms should appear after birth information (if the birth information is known and entered) and burials and cremations should appear after death (if death information is known). Same with cenotaph information.

I really appreciate this opportunity for us patrons to enter our thoughts as the new code is being written and implemented.

There are tons of ideas which the developers may have overlooked as they put together the design.

Some of our ideas will likely be implemented, while others may find a place on a "nice to add" list for future development, but the opportunity is great as we toss out ideas and provide a lot of user input to the process.

The kick-back that FS will sometimes get comes from issues like the Events showing the Standardised Place, where the very fact that it's different from production leads us to presume that's the intentional, final design. If it just happens to be an intermediate stage in the coding and the Display place will re-appear eventually, well, sorry but we don't know that...

I agree. The timeline should not show the standardized place, even though that is used by the Map display. What needs to be shown in the place as the patron entered it, and when the place is entered, then both shown (as is the case now).

I have not done extensive testing to see if the standard always overrides the place as entered, to it agrees with the standard, but from what I remember when I did test that, it did not, as is the case today.

For me, I'm waiting for the code to mature as this UI is being developed.

Re where the Maps open up - I said some way above, "In Chrome, it opens up pretty much as I just requested - concentrating on the pins. In Firefox, it's centred on the west coast of CA. "

This appears to be what happens with the production Place-names Standardising Tool - search for "London England" as your first input in Firefox and the map opens up in the Pacific. Search for "London England" as your first input in Chrome and the map opens up very close round the London, England pins.

So it's an existing feature that needs fixing for all those of us who don't live in California - centre the maps properly in Firefox please!

Jacob Milo Nielsen said in an earlier post, "There must absolutely be some way to have a Life Sketch or something similar on the main Detail page. This is essential to maintaining the integrity of the tree. If the programmers will actually will look at how the Life Sketch is currently being used, they will see that in many cases it's used for essential information that people need to know, such as don't add these certain parents to this person for the following reason, be aware that this person is commonly confused for another person, etc.
The reality is that people don't read. There must be a way to have the Life Sketch still in a prominent position or have some way to have a summary or particular note right on the main detail page."
Is it possible to format Life Sketch, irregardless how it is used, in similar fashion to what Ancestry.com does? The Life Sketch is at the top of the detail section.

What is on that Ancestry page? It's an automatically generated summary of the person. It is not a massive wall of text which some Life Sketch entries are on FSFT. Below that text is a timeline. However what is the Details tab in the beta most like? I would say it's most like the Facts tab on Ancestry. Does the Facts tab have a big wall of text at the top? No. It has a timeline of facts (which can be altered to include family events etc if desired), it has a list of sources and it has links to close family members. That's pretty much the same as on the Details tab in the FSFT beta.

I'm afraid those promoting Life Sketch at the top of the tab do not understand good UI design. If you have too much information presented with a UI it will be perceived as cluttered and its efficiency will drop dramatically. Life Sketch potentially has a massive amount of information presented, in a way that is actually very inefficient for delivering that information. A wall of text, even paragraphed and paginated text, quickly becomes dominating and overwhelming.

If you don't believe me on this consider the comments that get made for those entries in FSFT which have a lot of sources attached to them. Users are desperate for a way to organise those sources and break and categorise up the massive list which results. Why are they desperate for a way to do this? Because too much information is presented in one format and overwhelms the usefulness of that format. The same is true of putting Life Sketch where some want it.

Beyond this is the real reason behind at least some people want the Life Sketch to show on the main page: stopping novice users wrecking well-sourced and established profiles like a bull in a china shop. That in and of itself is not a good reason to put the Life Sketch on the main page because it is a misuse of the Life Sketch functionality to put warnings in it. However that does suggest a need for some kind of functionality to stop or mitigate such instances. I don't know what the solution in those kind of circumstances would be, as it would be tricky to produce one that achieves the desired end without massively aggravating experienced users. However I believe that it is a problem which needs to be tackled properly and comprehensively and effectively.

I would favor an optional warning banner that could be composed and then switched on/off by the patron.

The first time, I saw such a warning in the Life Sketch, it bothered me, because it was on a persons page who had not been completed to any real degree. Eventually, I ignored the warning and filled out the details, providing sources and reason statements to back the changes I had made. I left the warning in place and put the person on my watch list.

Since the warning seemed to deter many changes, I decided to start using those kinds of "flag warnings" myself. I don't know what good they do because I do not know what the patron who crafted the initial warning that I saw, was thinking, but for the most part, the warnings have helped. Even more important are the reason statements that many patrons who just "barge ahead" ignore when they make their (incorrect) changes. Messages to those patrons seem to do more good than anything else.

I agree...some sort of "warning" banner that can be turned off/on by the patron would be extremely beneficial, and perhaps deter some from making incorrect changes. Also concer, that if a 'warning' statement is issued, there needs to be a reason statement why the warning message was placed.

My guess Howard, is that's nothing to do with the Beta UI but is a reflection of the current hinting system, which has a habit of hinting at events that are utterly illogical either because the guy is already dead or impossibly old.

Although it might also be the case that said guy is simply mentioned in the obituary or on the DC - in neither case being the principal.

Either way, I'm on my phone writing this as a suggestion, so I've not checked.

it is probably a source for one of his childrens death - and yes at that time the person was probably 141. I noticed the same thing on a great grandfather who died at age 51 and it showed something on the time line at age 76 which surprised me. Further investigation indicated it was an obituary where he was mentioned and it did occur when he would have been 76 years old. I really do not understand why anything is added to the timeline after the death of an individual. Do I really care that a son or daughter died 80 years after their father. It just seems like to much fluff to me.

As gasmodels says, it is probably a source for one of the children. Hints are common for someone other than the person for whom they appear, where the person for whom they appear is in the record, but is not the primary person in the record. (Example: A parent on a child's death certificate)

These hints are valuable as they help establish the connect between children and their parents, especially when they are death certificates.

But gasmodels is correct. The timeline for the person needs to stop at the person's death/burial/obituary. Sources are a different story, but the timeline definitely needs to stop with the events and sources surrounding the person's death.

It is a hint about the death entry of the son. It's showing up in the father's timeline because the father is mentioned in the record, and thus indexed there. Not the best way of showing that hint though!

because you are looking a death hints for children the source probably should be attached - the father is indicated in the death record but it does not belong in the timeline (at least in my opinion). It can be a valid hint but not belong in the timeline. Not accepting the hint is completely counter to what FamilySearch has preached since hints were added. --- " If the record reflect the person it should be attached"

The same problem occurs at the beginning of the time line. There were 3 data hints for John Rigby Wright from Bishop's Transcripts. I thought they were christening or birth data for John since they showed in the timeline at 0 age. No they show him as father of his son James. I assume the 0 age comes up because his age isn't listed in the birth record for his son. Again this source should be attached, but it shouldn't show up in the time line at age 0. And contrary to what I said in an entry further down, I do want to be able to see what a hint is about in one click without going to the Source Linker screen.

As you can see, no reference to Danby by Middleham in this record. There are a few places in Yorkshire that were also known by the same name: Seamer, Carlton and Normanby, for example. The Danby where my ancestors lived is also known as Danby with Castleton and Danby near Guisborough, to avoid confusion with Danby by Middleham (aka Danby Hall) and another parish called Danby Wiske!

I'm sure this type of situation is reasonably widespread: hence my weak joke - above - about the "Springfield" of Homer Simpson fame, where viewers were kept guessing for years about its identity (I believe there are 33 "Springfields" in the USA). My concern is that some of these maps are going to look pretty silly if the correct Danby, Springfield or wherever can't be identified by "the system" from the source detail, as in this example.

FYI - below shows the locations of the "3 Danbys" in North Yorkshire (formerly North Riding of Yorkshire):

This points up the current need and emphasizes it even more, that we patrons need to have a means to correct bad index entries. I'm not sure why this has such a low priority for being programmed. There are tons of source entries were the place is already faulty and even when the index entries can be corrected, those will still exist and need correcting.

In a way, if there is a major failure on the part of FamilySearch, it is the failure to provide a means to correct index entries. That problem is and will continue to leak over into the new U.I., making the Map look ludicrous.

The cart (the UI) has definitely gotten ahead of the horse (the means to correct the index entries). In fact, that horse died long ago and the cart is now ahead of one of that horse's descendants.

Actually, I don't consider this to be a bad index entry. Looking at Paul's screenshot, the index entry is identified as Danby, but also as in Guisborough Reg District. I believe that this combination uniquely identifies the place on the ground.

The residence event has been created either manually or via source linker. Danby, Yorks (or North Riding?) has been entered into the place-name of the residence - but only this bit, not the Guisboro RD.

I'm guessing that the entry wasn't done manually, or else the process to choose a standardised place-name would have prompted a choice between the Danbys. (I'm assuming Paul did the work here rather than someone who didn't understand the number of Danbys).

So presumably the Source Linker went ahead, added the place without any intervention from Paul and, because it's all done for you, there's no point at which you realise it's got the wrong Standard?

Playing Devil's Advocate here, it is surely the responsibility of the guy at the keyboard to realise this and do something to choose the correct Danby.

Of course, being more realistic - how does the guy know there's an issue? Probably, for a start, they have to know that there are multiple Danbys in reality. But also, as there is no on-screen event to prompt them about Standard names, the system has to show the standard name chosen so that the user can say, "What? Where did that one come from? I meant the other one..." In other words, the system must show both the standard and display place names and stop trying to hide the standard in case we frighten the horses.

Paul - have I got this wrong anywhere in terms of what you did? (I guess there is a possibility that the multiple Danbys didn't exist on entry of the 1841?)

(The good thing is that the new map has actually provided a prompt that there's an issue)

I am going to write 2 entries. My first is general opinion about the appearance of the beta site. The second will be some bugs/ problems I see. It takes considerably longer for a profile to load for me. In Windows 10 with Chrome, it takes 15-20 seconds for a profile to load. In Edge it took more than 30 seconds. In Mozilla it tells me that a webpage is slowing my browser down, do I want to wait or stop it. That doesn't always happen, but even when I get to the profile it is v....e.....r......y slow to load. Maybe I have too much else open? But the other windows are open in Chrome not in Firefox or Edge.

I like both the map and the timeline. I think they give users a way to literally see they have made a mistake. If my timeline shows the person dying before they are married or have children, I can see there is a problem. The same thing is true of maps. There are some problems. Bret, I like you noticed that a burial showed up before the death. In my case it was that the burial only had a year and the death had a complete date. But I think the important thing is that we both noticed the error. I think a map and timeline may help people notice more errors.

I am OK with Hints showing up in the timeline and with there being only one click that immediately takes me to the Source Linker Screen. I think I see all the pertinent information there and I can still click "Not a Match" Tom, can you tell me what is different about the little pop up card in the production version? Am I not noticing something important

I agree, I don't like the title "Talk." Nor do I like Life Sketches that yell at me that I shouldn't change anything on this profile. I would change the title to Conclusions. This area could include a section labeled Conclusions where people could legitimately explain why person A should not be merged with person B or that the kids go to person B. Somehow it would be nice if this section could have links to the appropriate sources to prove the conclusions. This section would be inline with what was suggested in the first whitepaper about FamilyTree. Conclusions is a good place to keep both a biography and information tying the sources together and explaining possible errors. There could also be sections for Notes and Discussions. Sometimes I wonder why we have Life Sketch when there is a place in memories for Biography, but I think some people like a separate bio. Life Sketch, Notes and Discussions are always opinions, concerns, special circumstances. Labeling the whole section Conclusions makes it clear that users should look at it.

And please, could we encourage civility in Conclusions. I understand that a user may have done lots of research and may be frustrated with people incorrectly making changes. But she/he doesn't know me as a user, and I would prefer that our first contact on a profile not be in all caps and sound angry. So I am happy that the Life Sketch is moved. Maybe if there was a way to refer to the sources within a Conclusion section, people would be less inclined to be so angry in the way they structure their information. I wonder if the fact that many are in essence "misusing" the Life Sketch isn't part of the reason it is being changed. "Conclusions" is a title that carries more weight than "Talk."

"In Mozilla it tells me that a webpage is slowing my browser down, do I want to wait or stop it."
I get that - from previous threads, I have decided that Firefox is more susceptible to issues with speed / throughput but I have never seen this with the production system under Firefox.

"the little pop up card in the production version" - it gives you the content of the record pretty much as is, not as interpreted by the software. Yes you can back out of later screens, but most people will have mentally committed themselves by this point.

I do have a serious concern. When I look at John Rigby in https://www.familysearch.org/tree/per... there are 3 hints and 2 Data Warnings. The same profile in Beta has 10 hints and 7 data warnings. The data warnings are all possible duplicate children. So it may just be the way the warnings show up not a real difference. I will have to go through all the current sources and hints to figure out if they are different. At first glance there are fewer sources in Beta, only 7 as opposed to 12 in Production.

Also When I open the details of the sources I see the tabs at the top of the source. Then they all have 2 error screens in gray. They say Error unknown-name(en)
Error Unknown Other-Info in. After that I can see the citation. I can't see the transcription like I can in Production. I can tell what the source refers to by reading the citation. When I click on the URL I get the indexed information. I hope these are bugs. It is very helpful to see the indexed information when I click to see the details of a source. I thought at first that I was only seeing sources I attached, but at least one source was attached by someone else.

Easy explanation of the fewer sources: look at the last edited date for the live data and the beta data.

As for the errors about not finding information, I think that may be because the sign-in system for FSFT is currently completely borked. The 20 minute time-out appears to have been reduced to 0 as it is constantly asking me to log in again on both live and beta sites.

Yes Joe, I worked that out eventually for myself - but it should not have been coded like that. Cookies should be site specific and I should not be bounced into using another browser. Of course, it's probably been like that for ages and I've only just noticed because I'm making so much use of the 2 for comparison.

Beta is the wild west for coding. Code it and see how that feature works, not necessarily how it integrates with everything else - it's not an integrated production system. Bouncing between production and beta website is not a normal user behavior so I wouldn't expect any coding or resources to make that be diverted to that use case.

I use a completely different computer when I work with the Beta site. About the only thing that is common between both computers is the Get Satisfaction site (this one), which I will use when I am working with Beta and have something worthwhile to report.

"Bouncing between production and beta website is not a normal user behavior so I wouldn't expect any coding or resources to make that be diverted to that use case."

Hm. Actually that's exactly what I'd expect ordinary users to be doing! Half the time I use Beta, it's me experimenting how to do something. The other half it's occasions like this, when we are comparing the proposed with production. Comparison will need the simultaneous use of both.

Having said that, now we know that using a separate browser is a way to do it (and it would have been nice to have known that to start with), then I'm not that worried about the way that it should have been coded. I also suspect that putting context into the cookies (and what else?) is probably not a quick job and certainly not one to rush, so I'm happy to use 2 browsers.

The two sites do not even use the same database. The beta site datebase is old, and from what I have been able to determine was last updated around the end of April this year. Therefore, the two will not match as far as hints, sources, data, or anything else when comparing records for the same person.

Beta is where we get to test software with what has been moved from production and modified along the way since it was last updated.]

A "sandbox" uses current data and production code, but is still separated from the production data. Once will not update the other.

The "sandbox" was a training tool and has been discontinued. When I was familiar with it, it was in its own room in the Family History Library in Salt Lake. It was discontinued some 8 or 9 years ago, and I do not believe there was ever an online version.

Do not attempt to rectify the differences between the two databases. If you are concerned about data in the production site, then do not switch over to look at the beta site. That will only serve to confuse any issues you may be having with production.

To answer the points you raise (above) about my actions, etc., I have temporarily detached the 1841 census source from John Briiggs. In the (re)attaching process I get this screen:

So, as expected, there is no trace of Danby by Middleham in this record, of which I have no power over editing, of course, as I can only carry across the residence place as shown (Danby, Yorkshire,Yorkshire North Riding, England).

If I WERE able to add this detail myself (which I could only do if I created a Custom Event for the 1841 residence) this is the selection offered for a Danby, Yorkshire input:

Obviously I do not know how the programming works whereby Danby by Middleham has been placed on the timeline instead of the standard for the "correct" Danby (Danby with Castleton), especially when the 1841 census source merely states "Danby"!

But I think this is a good illustration of potential problems when there are multiple, very similar, place names.

(Btw - I've just remembered, "my" Danby is also known as Danby in Cleveland! However, when I visited the village about 9 years ago, both station and signposts show just "Danby" as the place name.)

Paul, if you filter the timeline to just residences you will see the residences coming from the census records. You can then edit each of them. it is possible to change the standardized to "Danby with Castleton, Yorkshire, England, United Kingdom" It does take a little work but at least is should help. There appear to be two 1841 and 1861 that are showing as "Danby by Middleham, Yorkshire, England, United Kingdom"

I agree this is going to be confusing and a lot of work when we go about using the map. Hope this is useful to you. - To edit the location after clicking edit click in the box with the name add a space and some other standards display

Thanks Paul. So there is no possibility to alter the place or to select a correct standard place name during the source linker. As Gasmodels said, you'd need to edit the stuff afterwards. And that begs the question of why you would suspect that you had a wrong standard place name, if it's not made obvious. So something needs to be tweaked to provide that prompt.

I would guess that Danby went to the one it did because it's the first in the list that's sorted by time then alphabetically. So what happened/ would happen to the others input via the source linker? After all, many of them are right!

I say sorted by time (latest first) but that could also be an artefact of the order they were put into the file of standard place names.

Thank you for the advice. Obviously, I had not looked closely enough at the editing option within the timeline feature. Bedtime in the UK right now, so will play around with this tomorrow!

Good to see there will be a way around this, but naturally things will be much easier if you already have a basic idea of the geography of your ancestors' various places of residence and related events. Otherwise, you could take things on face value - perhaps thinking it confusing (as in my example) that they were at one Danby in 1835 and another (some 50 miles away) in 1841!

Ron Tanner: gasmodels is correct - you made the point I was trying to make when you said it is not a match. Seeing an obituary dated 1935 in the timeline of someone who died in 1846 and whom the timeline calculated as 141 years of age would cause inexperienced users to assume it was not a match. However, in reality, it is the obituary of that subjects son and the record should be attached as a source document but NOT showing in the timeline. As others have said in this thread that a record hint that is outside the life range of the subject should not appear in the timeline but should be shown in the record hints to be attached. .

Actually, it's not a bad idea at all, It's the TIME LINE that is a bad idea. The Time Line is a TOY. It may be useful for a couple Hundred of our ancestors but is totally useless for ten's of thousands of them. The current format is quite adequate for the vast majority of our ancestors (and for the majority or users) therefore, the TIME LINE should be an "optional" feature that can be accessed as needed.

Is the current format adequate though? I don't think it is. For example it takes two clicks to in two separate places to edit any fact in a profile at the moment. That is unnecessary. On Ancestry a double click on a fact will bring it up for editing: much faster. With a direct edit link a single click will bring it up for editing: much faster. One of the changes will drastically reduce the number of clicks required to take the actions to edit a profile. That is an enormous improvement to the system.

As for the timeline being adequate for a couple of hundred of "our ancestors" but not for tens of thousands of them?! What on earth are you going on about? The timeline is unique to each profile. Each entry in FSFT has its own timeline. Therefore your hyperventilation about a smaller number of ancestors v a larger number of ancestors is oxymoronic and nonsensical.

I agree with you, David. I see the timeline as filling the void between an inadequate story of a person's life and the "just the facts" events and conclusions that may or may not be included.

My proposal for merging the life sketch (allowing for a patron-generated banner) would be to flesh out the timeline with anecdotal comments based upon the events of not only the person, but their close relatives. If everything, including the comments (often with pictures), a patron could paint a very complete picture of their ancestor or relative through the timeline. It would be something that could make the person live in the eyes of those reading it.

Of course, this means more research, especially into the history of the people, but there are plenty of sources along those lines that are often overlooked because of the generalities.

One of my lines were Oregon Trail pioneers. The family's story as they moved across the country is full of anecdotal material -- material that is hard to put into the current format, even in memories. There are tails to be told, and how those tails came to be family traditions, some memorable, some not so much, but still part of the lives of our relatives.

Roy, I think that you need to explain why you think that the timeline is useless for such a huge percentage of your ancestors. Surely their events are dated, in which case, listing the events in date order is the only logical arrangement. If you don't like the interleaving of hints with established events, then fair enough but please specify. It really is important that people give the software guys concrete points to work with.

David, I think Roy is talking about the reality that for most people, once you get back a few generations, facts and sources are scarce, and you're happy if you know more than a great-great-grandparent's name. A Timeline for such an ancestor is a worse than useless waste of screen. It's also just pointless clutter for the many, many children who died young.
I must admit that I share Roy's distaste for the Timeline, especially when it's littered with stupid record hints that I Don't Want To Deal With Right Now.

Three days ago, in this thread, Howard Camp provides an illustration of the time line. Look at the second one. It contains the open "filter" box, in which all but the Vital Information material can be unchecked, leaving the timeline to only those events.

It really is up to the patron how much or how little information is displayed on the time line, so for those who want to see everything in date order, they can. For those who want minimal information, they can have that. It is patron-dependent from what I can tell.

Juli, there might only be a baptism and marriage (hopefully burial but let's not get too optimistic) - but I can't see that arranging these 2 or 3 events on a timeline takes up radically more space than listing the same events in the current, err, date order. Not when you think of all the menu options down the right.

Now, it may be that the current arrangement of the items on the timeline is a bit wasteful - I'm not a fan of the icons and I'm certain that the amount of glass used can be tightened up, but if that's the issue, then I think that we need specific arguments rather than simply saying that it's a toy.